Re: 5/22/01 - [GTMI] Newsfactor.com: Got Something Bad To Say? Go to a Chat Room
Got Something Bad To Say? Go to a Chat Room
By Jay Lyman
NewsFactor Network
May 22, 2001
A U.S. District Court has dismissed a defamation suit and issued an accompanying order that Global Telemedia International (GTMI) pay the attorneys' fees for individuals the company sued over Internet message board postings. The action may set the stage for broader protection of those who post jibes on the Web.
The court's ruling that the postings of Barry King and Ron Reader on a Raging Bull message board were protected free speech on a public issue may discourage the aggressive pursuit of Web posters critical of corporations, according to legal observers.
"The trend is that Internet speakers are becoming more aware of their rights," Megan Gray, the Los Angeles attorney who defended Reader, told NewsFactor Network.
Lawsuit SLAPPed
The defamation suit filed by GTMI, a Newport Beach, California-based telecommunications company, argued that statements made by Reader and Stevens, who posted under different names on Raging Bull's GTMI message board, were defamatory.
The court, however, dismissed the suit earlier this year, applying legislation known as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and ruled last week that GTMI must also pay the defendants' legal fees, which total more than $55,000.
Attorney Gray told NewsFactor that the case marks the first time a company has had to pay legal fees in such a case, and may help discourage companies in their aggressive fight against critical Web postings.
"The large attorney-fee award may stem the hundreds of 'cyber gag' lawsuits being filed around the country to stifle Internet speech expressing negative opinions about matters of public interest, like poor corporate performance," said a statement from Gray's firm, Baker & Hostetler LLP.
Subpoena Squashers
While free speech and legal groups have warned of the growing number of suits that seek to disclose the identity of Web posters and pursue defamation claims, they say the tide may be turning.
"[This case] is going to discourage [frivolous lawsuits] because many of these cyber SLAPP or cyber gag suits are violations of free speech," Gray said. "The law does not permit a company to file a frivolous lawsuit solely to obtain subpoena power. The companies that pursue these look bad."
Attorneys and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also increasingly defending Web posters and their identities, Gray said, adding that many message boards also now contain more information on rights of expression.
Concurring Courts
Gray, who said her client's Web postings critical of GTMI were also defensible as the truth, said many of the corporations that pursue defamation suits involving Web postings are finding the courts unfriendly.
"The courts, once presented with the facts and the evidence and the laws, recognize these lawsuits for what they are, which is an intimidation tactic," she told NewsFactor.
In the GTMI case, the courts ruled that the postings were opinion, not statements of fact, and that as such, the validity of the statements could not be proven one way or the other.
"The reasonable reader, looking at the hundreds and thousands of postings about the company from a wide variety of posters, would not expect that the defendant was airing anything other than his personal views of the company and its prospects," wrote Judge David Carter in his ruling.
newsfactor.com |
